Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!

[RollingThunder]

I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM,

Well of course you don't, CrazyFruitcake, 'cause you're an anti-science retard.

it's on YOU to show us a repeatable experiment to demonstrate how it works.

But CrazyFruitcake, you're very obviously far too retarded to understand the science since it has been explained to you and your braindead denier cult butt-buddies many times on this forum.

Arrihenius didn't and NONE of the labs doing this fake "Science" ever did either. 40% of a rounding error is still a rounding error and don't forget that water vapor supposedly does 90% of the heat trapping. Where are your stats on H2O? Hmmmm?

And more clueless retarded drivel from the CrazyFruitcake.

You claim AGW causes: Droughts, floods, ice storms, heat, cold and can start forest fires.

AGW does cause droughts and floods. AGW has raised the water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% since 1970 and that has increased the amount of snowfall and rainfall. Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed causing "heat", nitwit. Climate changes produced by AGW have caused unusual movements of Arctic air masses and that has produced colder than normal temperatures in some places in the winter. AGW has increased temperatures and caused lingering droughts that have dried out the vegetation to the point where fires are more likely to start and tend to be larger and more intense when they do get going. All of that is scientifically verified but of course, CrazyFruitcake, you're far too retarded to comprehend the science.

I think...

ROTFLMAO.......lolololololololololololol.......................another one of your many delusions.....

the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.

And there's that old CrazyFruitcake wacko conspiracy theory insanity again.

It's really too bad that you're so brain damaged, CrazyFruitcake. Nasty people are taking advantage of your mental incompetence.

 

[skookerasbil]

I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM,

Well of course you don't, CrazyFruitcake, 'cause you're an anti-science retard.

it's on YOU to show us a repeatable experiment to demonstrate how it works.

But CrazyFruitcake, you're very obviously far too retarded to understand the science since it has been explained to you and your braindead denier cult butt-buddies many times on this forum.




And more clueless retarded drivel from the CrazyFruitcake.






AGW does cause droughts and floods. AGW has raised the water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% since 1970 and that has increased the amount of snowfall and rainfall. Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed causing "heat", nitwit. Climate changes produced by AGW have caused unusual movements of Arctic air masses and that has produced colder than normal temperatures in some places in the winter. AGW has increased temperatures and caused lingering droughts that have dried out the vegetation to the point where fires are more likely to start and tend to be larger and more intense when they do get going. All of that is scientifically verified but of course, CrazyFruitcake, you're far too retarded to comprehend the science.

I think...

ROTFLMAO.......lolololololololololololol.......................another one of your many delusions.....

the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.

And there's that old CrazyFruitcake wacko conspiracy theory insanity again.

It's really too bad that you're so brain damaged, CrazyFruitcake. Nasty people are taking advantage of your mental incompetence.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM,

Well of course you don't, CrazyFruitcake, 'cause you're an anti-science retard.





But CrazyFruitcake, you're very obviously far too retarded to understand the science since it has been explained to you and your braindead denier cult butt-buddies many times on this forum.




And more clueless retarded drivel from the CrazyFruitcake.






AGW does cause droughts and floods. AGW has raised the water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% since 1970 and that has increased the amount of snowfall and rainfall. Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed causing "heat", nitwit. Climate changes produced by AGW have caused unusual movements of Arctic air masses and that has produced colder than normal temperatures in some places in the winter. AGW has increased temperatures and caused lingering droughts that have dried out the vegetation to the point where fires are more likely to start and tend to be larger and more intense when they do get going. All of that is scientifically verified but of course, CrazyFruitcake, you're far too retarded to comprehend the science.





ROTFLMAO.......lolololololololololololol.......................another one of your many delusions.....

the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.

And there's that old CrazyFruitcake wacko conspiracy theory insanity again.

It's really too bad that you're so brain damaged, CrazyFruitcake. Nasty people are taking advantage of your mental incompetence.

The ice is melting, so how isn't the earth warming?

 

[ScienceRocks]

How the fuck can anyone say that the earth isn't going through a climate change? Just look at this.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Strong mass loss at low elevations has had dynamic impact on the entire Greenland ice sheet

Dynamic inland propagation of thinning due to ice loss at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet – Wang et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: &#8220;Mass-balance analysis of the Greenland ice sheet based on surface elevation changes observed by the European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) (1992-2002) and Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) (2003-07) indicates that the strongly increased mass loss at lower elevations (<2000 m) of the ice sheet, as observed during 2003-07, appears to induce interior ice thinning at higher elevations. In this paper, we perform a perturbation experiment with a three-dimensional anisotropic ice-flow model (AIF model) to investigate this upstream propagation. Observed thinning rates in the regions below 2000 m elevation are used as perturbation inputs. The model runs with perturbation for 10 years show that the extensive mass loss at the ice-sheet margins does in fact cause interior thinning on short timescales (i.e. decadal). The modeled pattern of thinning over the ice sheet agrees with the observations, which implies that the strong mass loss since the early 2000s at low elevations has had a dynamic impact on the entire ice sheet. The modeling results also suggest that even if the large mass loss at the margins stopped, the interior ice sheet would continue thinning for 300 years and would take thousands of years for full dynamic recovery.&#8221;

Citation: Wang, Weili; Li, Jun; Zwally, H. Jay, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 58, Number 210, August 2012 , pp. 734-740(7), DOI: International Glaciological Society (IGS) » Journal of Glaciology.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Glaciers are shrinking in Big Naryn basin in Central Asia

Glacier changes in the Big Naryn basin, Central Tian Shan &#8211; Hagg et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;A glacier inventory referring to the year 2007 was created for the Big Naryn basin based on satellite imagery. The 507 glaciers had a total area of 471 km². Compared to the Soviet glacier inventory based on data from the mid 20th century, the total glacier area decreased by 23.4%. The shrinkage varies from 14% to 42% between individual mountain ranges. We discuss the possible causes for this considerable variation by analyzing and interpreting topographic parameters and differences between seven sub-regions. On three glaciers, ice thickness was derived by ground penetrating radar (GPR) measurements on the glacier tongues and by surface slope using a simplified ice mechanical approach on the upper parts. We estimate the total ice volume of the basin for both inventories using volume-area scaling. Our results show a current glacier volume of 26.0-33.3 km³. A total of 6.6-8.4 km³ (20%) have been lost since the mid 20th century. The water equivalent of 5.9-7.6 km³ was transformed into excess discharge and contributed to at least 7.3-9.2% of total runoff in the considered period.&#8221;

Citation: W. Hagg, C. Mayer, A. Lambrecht, D. Kriegel, E. Azizov, Global and Planetary Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.07.010.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Record low temperature minimums decreasing and record high maximums increasing in United States

Trends in record-breaking temperatures for the conterminous United States &#8211; Rowe & Derry (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;In an unchanging climate, record-breaking temperatures are expected to decrease in frequency over time, as established records become increasingly more difficult to surpass. This inherent trend in the number of record-breaking events confounds the interpretation of actual trends in the presence of any underlying climate change. Here, a simple technique to remove the inherent trend is introduced so that any remaining trend can be examined separately for evidence of a climate change. As this technique does not use the standard definition of a broken record, our records* are differentiated by an asterisk. Results for the period 1961&#8211;2010 indicate that the number of record* low daily minimum temperatures has been significantly and steadily decreasing nearly everywhere across the United States while the number of record* high daily minimum temperatures has been predominantly increasing. Trends in record* low and record* high daily maximum temperatures are generally weaker and more spatially mixed in sign. These results are consistent with other studies examining changes expected in a warming climate.&#8221;

Citation: Rowe, C. M. and L. E. Derry (2012), Trends in record-breaking temperatures for the conterminous United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16703, doi:10.1029/2012GL052775.

 

[Old Rocks]

So much for all the bullshit about the good that increased CO2 was supposed to do.

AGW Observer

Elevated carbon dioxide may affect hydrological cycle by decreasing plant respiration

Deep-time evidence of a link between elevated CO2 concentrations and perturbations in the hydrological cycle via drop in plant transpiration &#8211; Steinthorsdottir et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;The physiological effects of high CO2 concentrations, i.e., [CO2], on plant stomatal responses may be of major importance in understanding the consequences of climate change, by causing increases in runoff through suppression of plant transpiration. Radiative forcing by high [CO2] has been the main consideration in models of global change to the exclusion of plant physiological forcing, but this potentially underestimates the effects on the hydrological cycle, and the consequences for ecosystems. We tested the physiological responses of fossil plants from the Triassic&#8211;Jurassic boundary transition (Tr&#8211;J) succession of East Greenland. This interval marks a major high CO2-driven environmental upheaval, with faunal mass extinctions and significant floral turnover. Our results show that both stomatal size (expressed in fossil material as SL, the length of the stomatal complex opening) and stomatal density (SD, the number of stomata per mm2) decreased significantly during the Tr&#8211;J. We estimate, using a leaf gas-exchange model, that the decreases in SD and SL resulted in a 50%&#8211;60% drop in stomatal and canopy transpiration at the Tr&#8211;J. We also present new field evidence indicating simultaneous increases in runoff and erosion rates. We propose that the consequences of stomatal responses to elevated [CO2] may lead to locally increased runoff and erosion, and may link terrestrial and marine biodiversity loss via the hydrological cycle.&#8221;

Citation: Margret Steinthorsdottir, F. Ian Woodward, Finn Surlyk and Jennifer C. McElwain, Geology, v. 40 no. 9 p. 815-818, doi: 10.1130/G33334.1.

 

[Old Rocks]

More evidence, as if any more is needed, of rapid ice loss due to the recent warming.

AGW Observer

Early 20th century abruptly ended a 1500-year period favoring Castle Creek Glacier expansion

Late Holocene glacier expansion in the Cariboo and northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, Canada &#8211; Maurer et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Castle Creek Glacier in the Cariboo Mountains of British Columbia remained close to its Little Ice Age limit for most of the past 1500 years, without significant recession until the 20th century. This conclusion is based on radiocarbon-dated detrital and in-situ plant material overrun by the glacier, and the sedimentary record from informally named On&#8211;off Lake, which received clastic sediments only when Castle Creek Glacier crossed a hydrologic divide 330 m upvalley of the Little Ice Age limit. Plant macrofossils recovered from the transition between basal inorganic silt and overlying organic silty clay in a sediment core from the lake indicate that the glacier first retreated behind the divide ca. 10.92&#8211;9.70 ka. Ages of 8.97&#8211;8.61 and 5.58&#8211;5.53 ka on detrital wood from the glacier&#8217;s forefield may record earlier advances, but the first unequivocal evidence of glacier expansion is from an overridden stump with an age of 4.96&#8211;4.45 ka. Continuous accumulation of gyttja within On&#8211;off Lake, however, indicates that Castle Creek Glacier did not cross the hydrologic divide at any time during the first half of the Holocene. Glacigenic sediments began to accumulate in the lake between 2.73 and 2.49 ka, indicating that Castle Creek Glacier expanded beyond the hydrologic divide at that time. A coincident advance is also recorded in the northern Rocky Mountains of British Columbia at Kwadacha Glacier, which overran a vegetated surface at 2.69&#8211;2.36 ka. Clastic sedimentation in On&#8211;off Lake ceased soon after the Bridge River volcanic eruption (2.70&#8211;2.35 ka), indicating that Castle Creek glacier retreat to a position upvalley of the divide at that time. Sedimentation resumed before 1.87&#8211;1.72 ka when the glacier advanced again past the hydrologic divide. Following a second retreat, Castle Creek Glacier advanced across the divide a final time at ca. 1.54&#8211;1.42 ka. The snout of the glacier remained less than 330 m upvalley of the Little Ice Age moraine until the early twentieth century when annual moraines indicate rapid frontal recession to a position upvalley of the hydrologic divide. These data collectively indicate that glaciers in the Cariboo Mountains of British Columbia nearly achieved their all-time Holocene limits as early as 2.73&#8211;2.49 ka and climatic conditions in the early 20th century abruptly ended a 1500-year period favoring glacier expansion.&#8221;

Citation: Malyssa K. Maurer, Brian Menounos, Brian H. Luckman, Gerald Osborn, John J. Clague, Matthew J. Beedle, Rod Smith, Nigel Atkinson, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 51, 19 September 2012, Pages 71&#8211;80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.07.023.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Arctic sea ice extent breaks 2007 record low

August 27, 2012


Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents.

Please note that this is not an announcement of the sea ice minimum extent for 2012. NSIDC will release numbers for the 2012 daily minimum extent when it occurs. A full analysis of the melt season will be published in early October, once monthly data are available for September.



Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).

Conditions in context


Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of August 26, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for 2007, the previous record low year, and 1980, the record high year. 2012 is shown in blue, 2007 in green, and 1980 in orange. The 1979 to 2000 average is in dark gray. The gray area around this average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. The 1981 to 2010 average is in sky blue. Sea Ice Index data.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

After tracking near 2007 levels through July, the extent declined rapidly in early August. Since then, the loss rate has slowed some, averaging about 75,000 square kilometers (29,000 square miles) per day&#8212;equivalent to the size of the state of South Carolina. However, this is still much faster than the normal rate at this time of year of about 40,000 square
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you don't have any real science, hurl insults, make up charts and tree rings and keep repeating "AGW is for real"

You're sure it's not particulates from Asia that are causing this? You've eliminated all variables except for CO2 from the USA? Is that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky not a factor a factor?

 

[RollingThunder]

When you don't have any real science....

And that's you in a nutshell, CrazyFruitcake, you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you don't have any real science....

And that's you in a nutshell, CrazyFruitcake, you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies.

Remember when Einstein, Newton and Maxwell all said their theories didn't need experimental evidence because they were "peer reviewed" and they had "Consensus"?

Michio Kaku said that had Relativity failed even one experiment they would have had to throw it out and start all over, but since it's passed every single experiment (well maybe), it's probably a good theory. All you fuckers have is Mann's tree rings backed by faked and altered data

That ain't science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Moral: this is how science is done. There are no sacred cows in physics. Every theory has to work every time, in any place. Physics is constantly self-correcting. Even one data point can overthrow the more established theory. But, as Carl Sagan pointed out -- "Remarkable Claims Require Remarkable Proof.""

The Noose Around Relativity is Tightening | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

But AGW carries on even with faked and destroyed data and a specious premise. It's just not science

 

[RollingThunder]

When you don't have any real science....

And that's you in a nutshell, CrazyFruitcake, you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies.

Remember when Einstein, Newton and Maxwell all said their theories didn't need experimental evidence because they were "peer reviewed" and they had "Consensus"?

No, because it didn't happen. Just more of your confused insanity, CrazyFruitcake.

Michio Kaku said that had Relativity failed even one experiment they would have had to throw it out and start all over, but since it's passed every single experiment, it's probably a good theory. All you fuckers have is Mann's tree rings backed by faked and altered data

That ain't science

You're so retarded and ignorant, you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you. All you've got is your deranged denier cult myths about climate science. You have no idea what evidence the climate scientists actually have because you've got your head jammed way too far up your own asshole to be able to see the evidence.

"Moral: this is how science is done. There are no sacred cows in physics. Every theory has to work every time, in any place. Physics is constantly self-correcting. Even one data point can overthrow the more established theory. But, as Carl Sagan pointed out -- "Remarkable Claims Require Remarkable Proof.""

The Noose Around Relativity is Tightening | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

But AGW carries on even with faked and destroyed data and a specious premise. It's just not science

As I just said, CrazyFruitcake, "you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies". Like your idiotic myths about "faked and destroyed data" - didn't happen, all the data is there and available to the public.

You poor deluded and bamboozled retard, you just have no idea what is going on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rolling Thunder, clearly you're hysterical. Put a paper bag over your head, then rest your head between your knees, I'll come back in a few weeks to see if you've calmed down.

I know it feels like I'm attacking your God, but really, your AGW is a cult, a sick death worshiping cult, but still a cult.

You post a lot like Bobgnote. Was he an alternate account of yours to make you look sane?

 

[RollingThunder]

Rolling Thunder, clearly you're hysterical.

CrazyFruitcake, clearly you're a retard.

Put a paper bag over your head, then rest your head between your knees,

Pull your head out of your ass, then clean that old denier cult shit out of your eyes and ears and try to bring your brain back to life.

I'll come back in a few weeks to see if you've calmed down.

Translation: "oooooh, I have to run away now 'cause all my cherished myths are getting debunked with hard facts".

I know it feels like I'm attacking your God

Wrong again, CrazyFruitcake, as usual. Actually it feels like you're once again demonstrating just how incredibly retarded you are.

but really, your AGW is a cult, a sick death worshiping cult, but still a cult.

I'm sure that to a cultist like you, everything seems like another cult but your opinions on this are just more of your general insanity. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence gathered over many decades by tens of thousands of scientists and accepted as a valid scientific theory that explains the evidence by virtually the entire world scientific community. You deniers on the other hand are a cult, a sick, money worshiping, planetary death cult peopled with ignorant and gullible morons like you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

2012, 08, 25, 3.97332
2012, 08, 26, 3.94326
2012, 08, 27, 3.85419

In case you doubt this

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is August 1938

Danske Meteorologiske Institut published a series of annual reports on arctic sea ice covering most years from 1893 to 1956. The link has one folder per year, with each containing individual pages (month identified by the trailing digit) and the whole annual report (about 5 meg each).

Just referring to August extent...

Its true that ice extent was lower in the 1930s than it had been in the preceding 30 years. In particular, 1938 saw a dramatic reduction from the previous years - it was probably 1.4 M km^2 below the then long term average and maybe 0.6 M km^2 below the already low years in the late 30's (carefully measured using Eyeball, Mk I).

So, it is fair to say there were some big melts in the 30's. But Christy's false equivalence is an epic fail - "similar melts" is pretty nice weasel-wording for mine. 1.4 M km^2 below recent climatology? Considered like that, 1938 was like 2010, I guess.

But in absolute terms, August 1938 extent was much greater (4 M km^2?) than today. So any attempt to conflate the two is...well...I can['t think of an adjective suitable for polite company.

Taking the Kinnard graphic - the 1930's "similar melt" is the second last dip on the graph, the first decline with modern observational data. This saw a return to "normal" after a peak that had seen the greatest extents in 500 years.

Compared to the current decline on Kinnard (even without "enhancement")? Well, even on Sesame Street they could tell you when one of these things was not like the other...

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/similar-melts-from-1938-43.html

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/

August 1925
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1925/1925_08.pdf

August 1934
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1934/1934_08.pdf

August 1956
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1956/1956_08.pdf

There is no question that todays sea ice is outside of the norm.